Charter fee rose from $9 to $10 in November and will go up to $12 in March.

Share this story

Charter Communications will raise its "broadcast TV" fee from $9.95 to $11.99 on March 1, only four months after the previous fee increase.

Charter and other cable companies say they charge broadcast TV fees to recoup the cost of paying broadcasters for the right to retransmit their signals over cable systems. But Charter doesn't include the fee in its advertised rates, instead revealing the fee in the fine print, often giving customers bill shock when they learn that they have to pay more each month than expected.

Additionally, increases to the fee apply even to customers who agreed to deals that ostensibly lock in a specific monthly rate during a set period. In summary, Charter uses the broadcast TV fee to advertise lower rates than it actually charges and to raise prices on customers even before their promotional rates expire.

Further Reading

Charter previously raised the broadcast TV fee from $8.85 to $9.95 a month in November as part of a larger price increase for both cable TV and broadband services. (These price increases happened despite Charter lowering its spending on capital improvements to its cable network and services.)

The new broadcast TV fee increase to $11.99 coming on March 1 was reported last week by the Los Angeles Times, and Charter confirmed the change to Ars yesterday.

"It is accurate that the Broadcast TV Surcharge will increase to $11.99, effective March 1, across Spectrum markets," a Charter spokesperson told Ars. "The charge continues to reflect the rapidly rising cost of local broadcast channels."

Charter may face class-action suit

Charter could face a new class-action lawsuit over the price increases. The Hattis Law firm is asking Charter Spectrum customers who are upset about the fee to contact the firm with this online form. The law firm says:

Hattis Law is investigating complaints that Charter Spectrum charges a hidden and misleading 'Broadcast TV Surcharge' fee to its cable customers and repeatedly raises its rates on Time Warner [Cable] legacy customers. Spectrum just raised its 'Broadcast TV Surcharge' fee at the end of 2018 from $8.85 to $9.95 a month. Customers report that Spectrum fails to adequately disclose this fee, and then states or implies that the fee is a government-related charge. In reality, this fee is entirely made up and is simply a double-charge for the channels Spectrum already promised to provide in its advertised price.

Charter became the nation's second-biggest cable company behind Comcast in 2016 when it bought Time Warner Cable. Hattis Law said it is also investigating reports from former Time Warner Cable customers that "fixed rates are not being honored despite Spectrum staff promising no increases."

Hattis is also representing California residents in a class action against Comcast over its broadcast TV and regional sports network fees.

On the plus side for Charter customers, Charter doesn't charge a regional sports network fee. Charter has 16.1 million residential cable TV customers and 23.6 million residential Internet customers.

Charter complains about US law

As a direct result of local broadcast or "network-affiliated" TV stations in recent years dramatically increasing the rates to Charter Communications to distribute their signals to our customers, we're forced to pass those charges on as a "Broadcast TV Surcharge." These local TV signals were historically made available to us at no cost or low cost. However, in recent years the prices demanded by local broadcast TV stations have necessitated that we pass these costs on to customers.

Under US law, a broadcaster can choose to have a "must-carry" status, which forces cable operators to air its programming but prevents the broadcaster from demanding payment. Broadcast stations that don't opt for must-carry status can demand carriage fees, with the risk of not being distributed by cable systems.

Charter's FAQ on the matter says:

Broadcast TV stations distribute their signals over the air using free spectrum granted to them by the federal government. In effect, taxpayers are subsidizing the distribution of broadcast or "network-affiliated" TV signals. These same broadcast TV stations are then allowed by the government to charge for their signals, and if we don't agree to pay, broadcasters can force us to drop their channels, thereby adversely impacting our customers. We're in favor of changes to the law that created this situation, and if those changes are successful, we'll remove these broadcast TV charges.

Still, the cost of buying programming is part of the standard cost of doing business for cable TV operators and is reflected in the rapidly rising prices that cable TV customers pay for basic service even before extra fees are factored in. Charter could make its point to the government about broadcast TV carriage rules without following its current practice of advertising one rate to customers and then charging another.

Charter Communications will raise its "broadcast TV" fee from $9.95 to $11.99 on March 1, only four months after the previous fee increase.

Charter Communication shouldn't be allowed to charge a broadcast tv fee at all. If paying for broadcast tv is a cost of doing business then it should be included in your prices.

Imagine a gas station advertising gasoline for $0.99/gal. Then as you start pumping you realize it has a $5 pump activation fee and then $0.80/gal fuel surcharge, $0.10/gal pump electricity fee, $0.23/gal customer service and processing fee, and a $0.50/gal state regulatory compliance fee.

RCN jacked my cable bill up by $30 one month in October 2018. I called and threatened to cancel, at which point they backed off.

Then last month, they jacked it up by $10. I now have an antenna with a range of 130 miles that cost $22 via Amazon and no cable TV anymore. I'm sure at least some of the channels demand more money, which cable providers decide to pass on to us consumers, but shit like this is part of why there are so many cord cutters. They... may want to rethink their strategy.

The cable companies could let their customers decide to drop the broadcast channels and not have to pay the $12 a month that wouldn't be against the law that they want to change, but that would require unbunding channels and we can't have that.

Cable companies are required to retransmit those signals. The cost to do so is ipso facto a cost of doing business.

An FCC that lifted a cheek and emitted a tiny squeak of a fart for consumers, let alone giving a shit for them, would shut this malarkey down hard.

Cable companies are not required to retransmit these channels. Broadcast channels only have guaranteed retransmit rights if they charge no surcharge to the cable company. If they charge a single cent they lose guaranteed broadcast rights and are no different than ESPN or the Food Network. So it either costs charter nothing or charter can choose to not carrier these channels. Charter could drop CBS if they wanted to.

Regardless the cost should be included in the advertised price. They chose to accept CBS on a subscriber fee basis ergo that is their assumed cost so reflect it in the advertised price.

Do online tv services charge these "fees" also or is the price you see pretty much what you pay? Serious question, I don't have cable anymore and don't subscribe to an online tv service to see pricing info or possible hidden fees.

I've been a cord cutter for about 6 years but still use netflix and prime video when I do watch stuff so not really in the know for pricing these days

edit: saw someone post above that mentioned streaming tv service fees weren't nearly as bad as what Charter was doing.

Cable companies are simply pure evil. Caps are only the start as cutting the cord becomes more popular. They know we are beholden to them to be able to stream even after we ditch cable. Too bad there simply isn't any competition and the government is beholden to corporate interests.

It's a start but not quite the solution. Phase 1 was data caps. Phase 2 is eroding/eradicating net neutrality. Next action plan is reducing the caps and making competitors products buffer/look like garbage to make theirs more attractive.

There's really no fix to any of this stuff outside of breaking the monopolies and allowing multiple services on the same line, and let them compete.

That works. So does dropping cable TV. Streaming services don't have the sneaky fee problem, at least not to this extent.

They don't have the fee yet, but it will likely be implemented one way or another under a different name. It isn't a stretch that ISPs will start charging 'Streaming Convenience Fees' in the near future.

Charter Communications will raise its "broadcast TV" fee from $9.95 to $11.99 on March 1, only four months after the previous fee increase.

Charter Communication shouldn't be allowed to charge a broadcast tv fee at all. If paying for broadcast tv is a cost of doing business then it should be included in your prices.

Imagine a gas station advertising gasoline for $0.99/gal. Then as you start pumping you realize it has a $5 pump activation fee and then $0.80/gal fuel surcharge, $0.10/gal pump electricity fee, $0.23/gal customer service and processing fee, and a $0.50/gal state regulatory compliance fee.

Don't give them ideas. They already have credit charge fees and you are not washing your car here fees

Step #1 Admit There is a problem.Step#2 Cut Cable.Step#3 Get a Streaming Service.Step#4 Get an Antenna IF you REALLY need the local channels anymore.

Or get a streaming service like YouTube TV, that includes local channels in many markets. Somehow they can manage to fit the cost of carrying those channels into their advertised price. Why can't Charter?

I cut the cord around the end of the 2000's - say ten years ago. You'd be surprised how little you miss it. Getting the local news via TV was the only thing I sort of missed, but then, we have the Internet, which means I can find out what's going on anytime, and not have to be glued to the TV at a specific time (or miss whatever was broadcast).

I'm actually kind of surprised there are folks out there who still watch broadcast TV, but then, I'm also not that surprised.

Economically speaking, though, the more people who cut the cord, the fewer are paying into the kitty to pay those rebroadcast fees. Since that's pretty much double-dipping (since broadcasters get to show commercials - 20+ fucking minutes of them per hour! ), I'd not give any shits about paying for watching that at all. It's like subscribing to a network and still getting commercials. What the fuck do they need the re-transmission fees for if the advertisements take 1/3 of the available broadcast time?

Used to be the commercial fees paid for it.

Well, not my problem anymore. I don't do broadcast TV. And I urge everyone to stop doing it. It'll only get more expensive as people cut the cords.

There's really no fix to any of this stuff outside of breaking the monopolies and allowing multiple services on the same line, and let them compete.

Well... certain solutions involving guillotines or "this fine gentleman is going to break a finger for every bullshit charge you add" would probably do the trick, too. These aren't cosmic forces we're dealing with. They're people consciously choosing to be shitty for a little extra profit. And there's no drawback, so why should they stop? If we put the fear into their hearts, maybe we'd see some changes.

I mean I'd prefer to have a peaceful, lawful solution that made the world a better place, but I would probably cheer if tomorrow I woke up to headlines like "Charter CEO found vivisected"

Cable companies are required to retransmit those signals. The cost to do so is ipso facto a cost of doing business.

An FCC that lifted a cheek and emitted a tiny squeak of a fart for consumers, let alone giving a shit for them, would shut this malarkey down hard.

Cable companies are not required to retransmit these channels. Broadcast channels only have guaranteed retransmit rights if they charge no surcharge to the cable company. If they charge a single cent they lose guaranteed broadcast rights and are no different than ESPN or the Food Network. So it either costs charter nothing or charter can choose to not carrier these channels. Charter could drop CBS if they wanted to.

Regardless the cost should be included in the advertised price. They chose to accept CBS on a subscriber fee basis ergo that is their assumed cost so reflect it in the advertised price.

Step #1 Admit There is a problem.Step#2 Cut Cable.Step#3 Get a Streaming Service.Step#4 Get an Antenna IF you REALLY need the local channels anymore.

Or get a streaming service like YouTube TV, that includes local channels in many markets. Somehow they can manage to fit the cost of carrying those channels into their advertised price. Why can't Charter?

Because YouTube TV is on the internet and has a ton of competition and opportunity for competition. It's the free market at work. Charter has a monopoly probably protected by the government of the area that it is in along with a multi-billion dollar entry fee if someone wants to compete with them (tearing up streets and running cables or launching a satellite are expensive for a startup...) so they can charge whatever they want and you probably don't have a choice but to pay.

If prices keep going up & consumers keep getting sued this will have a brilliant effect

More cord cutters == more time to read & engage in the community as opposed to being stuck on your phone/tablet/tvWe may see a rise in neighborhood lawn chair get-togethers & children actually playing outside& letting their imagination & creativity give them wonderful memories

I have no issues of Charter charging for carrying broadcast stations. What I object to is Charter pretending it’s not part of their normal cost of doing business. If this fee isn’t an optional part of my subscription, then include it into your base rate. Don’t pretend you’re only charging $49.95 and then send me a bill for $63.87 because of a broadcast fee, cable box, remote control charge, and morning donuts tariff.

If I run a restaurant, and you order the $4.95 breakfast special, I don’t get to charge you a “knife and fork” fee and a “state imposed clean dish tariff” because the health department requires I wash my dishes before serving food on them. I include those costs as part of your $4.95 bill.

Cable companies and phone companies should not get to advertise one price and then charge another price all together by pretending these are separate fees.

Most of all, if I signed a contract with Charter for one price, they don’t get to constantly increase the price because they get to pretend it’s a separate fee and not part of the customer agreement.

Too bad Ars doesn't have access to the retrans agreements dictated by the network affiliates.

As an MVPD in the United States, the only alternative to not signing a retrans agreement is to not carry a network affiliate for a given network in a given DMA. You are not allowed to go out of market and sign a deal with an alternate, neighboring affiliate for that network or even carry the national NBC, CBS, ABC or FOX satellite feed. Heck, the retrans agreements don't even allow you to not carry the affiliate as a part of your 'basic' (most penetrated) channel line-up... so even though the 'Broadcast TV Fee' is itemized, as a subscriber, you are not able to opt-out.

Based on my first-hand experience (having previously worked for several cable operators over the years, but only as a technology vendor with Charter specifically), the 'broadcast TV fee' is a pass-thru meant to illuminate the direct cost now associated with rebroadcasting a signal over the cable, satellite or IPTV network that is otherwise 'Free to Air' for anyone with rabbit ears on their TV, in a futile effort to somehow encourage the FCC and/or congress to modify the retrans rules, something I would consider highly unlikely since Comcast now owns NBC.

Just that surcharge alone and people are half way to cord cutting, I can't understand why people are so willing to spend so much money every month, just to be advertised to non-stop. I guess sports.. it's always sports fault..

Cable companies should include a TV antenna built into the cable box. Then there's no retransmission over cable lines, and no fee. It could work seamlessly for people with good reception. Make it an option -- pay $12 / mo fee for retransmission, or use the built-in antenna for free.